Private Gun Show FFL transfer...would you use one?

[Nom de Forum]

I am nearly certain that the accurate answer for everyone responding to this thread is "Yes", in the future. I don't think we will succeed in more than delaying the inevitability of a law that all sales will have to be through a dealer. Please don't accuse me of being a Defeatist; I am being a Realist. I do think we can accept a law like this if it helps win the war to stop the creation of more banned gun lists becoming law.

 

[Monte Verde]

And the reason for that is?

You brought the subject up.....

 

[Warp]

....and Hovercat sheds some light. I will have to do some research on the subject. Thanks!

If they want to regulate something, they will bull their way into it using the interstate commerce clause.

In fact, that is why I cannot build a machine gun here in GA out of parts solely manufactured in GA with designs drawn up in GA with raw material mined in GA.

Because of interstate commerce.

It doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't have to be Constitutional. The people with the power make the rules and everybody else has to follow them. The federal government will do what it wants and we will be bound by whatever it is they want to legislate/regulate.

 

[DammitBoy]

You brought the subject up.....

No, you did when you claimed people wanting to keep their identity private was a strong indicator of less than noble intent.

I brought it back up to show, some people just like their private information to stay private, no nefarious or illegal motivation required.

 

[Warp]

I am nearly certain that the accurate answer for everyone responding to this thread is "Yes", in the future. I don't think we will succeed in more than delaying the inevitability of a law that all sales will have to be through a dealer. Please don't accuse me of being a Defeatist; I am being a Realist. I do think we can accept a law like this if it helps win the war to stop the creation of more banned gun lists becoming law.

This is folly.

Giving up some Rights and Liberties in no way protects other Rights and Liberties.

 

[Nom de Forum]

"This is folly."

"Giving up some Rights and Liberties in no way protects other Rights and Liberties."

Warp,

Your statements are either an expression of naivete, ignorance, deception or all three.

The laws a civilization adopts are always based on a compromise between absolute right and absolute liberty. Studying “The Law” instead of just “Gun Law” will help you understand this. Laws are made by politicians. Politics is compromise. "The Law" is like sausage. Some of the individual ingredients may be repulsive to you personally, but over all you like the taste of the sausage.

 

[jerkface11]

Why would you think giving them universal background checks would appease them? First they forced registration of machine guns and silencers. Then they required a license to sell guns. Then they stopped allowing machine guns to be registered. Then they instituted a waiting period which was replaced by background checks. Then they banned "assault weapons". Now they want background checks on private sales. If we don't say NO then what will they want next? History says it won't be nothing.

 

[Warp]

"This is folly."

"Giving up some Rights and Liberties in no way protects other Rights and Liberties."

Warp,

Your statements are either an expression of naivete, ignorance, deception or all three.

The laws a civilization adopts are always based on a compromise between absolute right and absolute liberty. Studying “The Law” instead of just “Gun Law” will help you understand this. Laws are made by politicians. Politics is compromise. "The Law" is like sausage. Some of the individual ingredients may be repulsive to you personally, but over all you like the taste of the sausage.

You are wrong.

You are clearly naive to history.

All a "compromise" does is move them to pushing for the next thing.

New York told people they could keep their 10 round magazines when they gave up 11+. Now you can't have 10 rounds in a magazine.

NYC told people they could keep rifles and shotguns of certain types, and now they are sending out letters that say differently.

And that is probably but 0.001% of actual real world examples proving that giving something up in the name of "compromise" does not prevent future "compromise"

 

[oneounceload]

Exactly ^^^^^^, their goal is NOT compromise, it is total confiscation and nothing short of that will stop them. Their view of compromise is that we give up something and they do not, that is right out of the old Soviet negotiating strategy.

 

[Warp]

Exactly ^^^^^^, their goal is NOT compromise, it is total confiscation and nothing short of that will stop them. Their view of compromise is that we give up something and they do not, that is right out of the old Soviet negotiating strategy.

What they give up is that they only take half of OUR pie instead of all of it.





But then they come back for the rest, and take half again.





Repeat.

 

[oneounceload]

I believe that is called "death by a thousand cuts"

 

[Nom de Forum]

“Why would you think giving them universal background checks would appease them?”

This has not prevented me from buying guns of all types.

“First they forced registration of machine guns and silencers.”

This has not prevented me from buying an automatic weapon and suppressor. If it has you, get busy in your state’s politics or move.

“Then they required a license to sell guns.”

This is a bad thing? It has not stopped me from selling or buying guns.

“Then they stopped allowing machine guns to be registered.”

You got me there, but it is not inconceivable registration could resume. Twenty years ago people would have said your are crazy if you told them by 2013 CCW permits would be far easier to obtain nationwide.

“Then they instituted a waiting period which was replaced by background checks.”

This is a bad thing? I like thorough background checks (loved my passing my SBI) that attempt to limit the occurrence of bad actions. I wish Eric Snowden had gotten one (not the B.S. private contractor for profit one he got).

“Then they banned "assault weapons".

Really? I guess just like them you were fooled into thinking this actually happened. What they really banned were what compromise made irrelevant and ultimately futile.

“Now they want background checks on private sales. If we don't say NO then what will they want next? History says it won't be nothing.”

You are right. What they want will not be nothing, it will be what they think is something. Just like the so called “Assault Weapons Ban” all we need to do is to convince them that what is really nothing is something so we can keep what really is something. All sales through FFLs is nothing in exchange for having sales of weapons they would otherwise attempt to ban. Keep them tied up in knots on the details of a law for FFL only sales for a while, appear to be reasonable and compromising, give them their little victory, while insisting that bans are no longer necessary because of this new law and they need to be reasonable and compromising. While doing this let us all start taking action to reduce the actual thing that are causing people to demand gun bans: the incivility of our society.

 

[Monte Verde]

No, you did when you claimed people wanting to keep their identity private was a strong indicator of less than noble intent.

I brought it back up to show, some people just like their private information to stay private, no nefarious or illegal motivation required.

Apples and oranges....

 

[Pizzapinochle]

What they give up is that they only take half of OUR pie instead of all of it.

But then they come back for the rest, and take half again.

Repeat.

That is what happens when one side does not participate in the compromise. The side in power takes what they can without giving anything up.

Maybe if the pro-gun side would participate in creating gun control policies, they could help create legislation that gave up some pie but also got some back.

 

[Warp]

I believe that is called "death by a thousand cuts"

A thousand paper cuts.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Guys we are winning.

More women shooting.

More and easier CCWs

More AR-15s and more makers.

More makers of semiautomatic pistols.

More suppressor sales.

More people wanting to buy full autos.

More entertaining "Gun Shows" on television that appeal to non-shooters.

Still not enough though to ensure what we have is protected. What we need is good PR with the apathetic to keep them apathetic or converted to our cause. All sales through FFLs is good P.R.

Don't let your extremism alienate non-shooting potential allies.

 

[oneounceload]

All sales through FFLs is good P.R.

No it isn't, not when it will then be used to take them away. You need to stop thinking about it where the only thing that counts is the next 6 months out; we need to focus on our grandkids and further with the legislation passed now.

 

[Ryanxia]

I am nearly certain that the accurate answer for everyone responding to this thread is "Yes", in the future. I don't think we will succeed in more than delaying the inevitability of a law that all sales will have to be through a dealer. Please don't accuse me of being a Defeatist; I am being a Realist. I do think we can accept a law like this if it helps win the war to stop the creation of more banned gun lists becoming law.

We must fight because there is no way they can enforce it without creating a registration which is already illegal.

Also, here's how a "universal background check" would play out in America:
All sales through gunshops.
Gunshop: "Wow we're overwhelmed, transfer fees are now $100" (on my $25 shotgun)
Gubmint: "Whoa, let's cap the transfer fees at $25 so people aren't in an uproar."
Gunshop: "I can't tie up all my time and employees in this for $25, we're no longer offering transfer services."
Private sales are now illegal.
Yes there will be some that continue to do it, but the lines will be out the doors and it will takes days just to do a transfer that right now requires 5 minutes of your time at no cost. People won't stand for it.

Anyways, didn't mean to get too far off topic.

P.S. Listen to Warp, giving ground never permanently appeases the gun control folks. We tried that during the past main gun control acts, (NFA, etc.)

 

[bigfatdave]

A legal sale is a legal sale. It doesn't become more-legal because you opted to involve the federal government in your transaction.

*applause*

===

If you sell your firearm to a prohibited person, who the commits a crime where someone is killed, tell the attorneys that made you a defendant in a wrongful death suit, that it was a legal sale and see how that works for you....

You're really reaching there, unless you have an actual example.

===

I honestly find it a little troubling how many of you are extremely satisfied with the fact that you can sell a gun to a violent, convicted criminal in a FTF sale as long as the criminal lies to you when you ask them if they are prohibited from owning a gun.

This is silly. I didn't release someone from incarceration that is so uncontrollably violent that they cannot be permitted to own a weapon.
The State made these classes of "prohibited persons", let The State handle keeping them away from arms. Rather than asking permission from some parental figure about how do dispose of your own property, act like an adult and make your own determination. In reality, no amount of background checking will solve our violent crime problem, but giving The State more power is quite likely to backfire, giving everyone idiot laws like NY/CA, that continue to expand in scope. Even the FedGov is working to expand the lists of "prohibited persons", adding non-violent offenders, misdemeanor offenders, and people not even accussed of a crime.

 

[bigfatdave]

On the subject of showing identification to prove you are a resident of the state you are physically in during a firearms sales transaction, can anyone explain why I, as a US citizen, can not go to a neighboring state and buy or sell a firearm?

A logical reason? Nope!
And defining "resident" is fuzzy, as an added bonus.

===

I've yet to hear how a gun I bought used in the first place could be traced back to me at all.

Seems unlikely to me. The effort involved would greatly exceed the effort required to do real police work and find the criminal.

 

[bigfatdave]

I had a home visit from the BATFE about a gun that I bought at a dealer that showed up inside yellow tape.

They would not tell me where the gun was recovered or the crime involved. I told them that I sold the gun at a gun show. The buyer was unknown to me but flashed a DL and a Concealed carry license. After a cup of coffee, they were gone in 15 minutes.

They were very polite and thanked me for my time and taking time to verify that the buyer was a residence of my state.

jaysouth, thanks for another actual example of how the real world works.

 

[bigfatdave]

Not throwing stones because I read a lot more than I post, but one would have to ask why someone with 17 posts in over seven years has 16 of those posts defending background checks in this thread.

Sure is odd, isn't it?

===

I am nearly certain that the accurate answer for everyone responding to this thread is "Yes", in the future. I don't think we will succeed in more than delaying the inevitability of a law that all sales will have to be through a dealer. Please don't accuse me of being a Defeatist; I am being a Realist. I do think we can accept a law like this if it helps win the war to stop the creation of more banned gun lists becoming law.

Such a law will never accomplish anything without 100%, mandatory, retroactive registration AND a ban on personal manufacture of arms.
It might pass, it won't be complied with, and it will not reduce crime.

It will ALSO not stop the anti-rights politicians from pushing for more gun control. Compromise didn't stop NY&CA from ever tightening restrictions, there is NEVER enough control for the control-addicts that seek office.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Compromise didn't stop NY&CA from ever tightening restrictions, there is NEVER enough control for the control-addicts that seek office.

That is because there was NOT compromise. There was, like I said earlier, one side in power enforcing their will.

This will continue to happen in urban centers (where most violent crimes with guns are committed) unless there is REAL compromise on a national scale.

act like an adult and make your own determination.

So when a gun runner buys a gun from a private sale then passes it off to a criminal who kills someone, your response is "Gee, that original seller should have been more of an adult and magically KNOWN that person was a gun runner."

I am sure the murder victims family will find that very comforting.

People, in this case specifically, gun owners making private sales, are NOT responsible. A good chunk of you here on this very thread have proven that, crowing with delight that you can sell to anyone with no possibility of legal repercussions.

 

[bigfatdave]

You're being silly and making assumptions, Pizzapinochle.

1 - There WAS compromise, on a certian mag capacity and list of allowed/nonallowed guns.

2 - Please, keep telling me how irresponsible I am and how much liability I incur for the actions of others - it is really helping your credibility.

 

[Nom de Forum]

We must fight because there is no way they can enforce it without creating a registration which is already illegal.

Also, here's how a "universal background check" would play out in America:
All sales through gunshops.
Gunshop: "Wow we're overwhelmed, transfer fees are now $100" (on my $25 shotgun)
Gubmint: "Whoa, let's cap the transfer fees at $25 so people aren't in an uproar."
Gunshop: "I can't tie up all my time and employees in this for $25, we're no longer offering transfer services."
Private sales are now illegal.
Yes there will be some that continue to do it, but the lines will be out the doors and it will takes days just to do a transfer that right now requires 5 minutes of your time at no cost. People won't stand for it.

Anyways, didn't mean to get too far off topic.

P.S. Listen to Warp, giving ground never permanently appeases the gun control folks. We tried that during the past main gun control acts, (NFA, etc.)

Nope. That is not what will happen.

The best thing that ever happened to dealers was making it harder to be a dealer. Less competition for the money. Making all sales go through a dealer will mean more money for dealers. Processing transfers will be a welcome source of revenue that requires less effort than actually selling guns.